Appeal No. 2003-0913 4
Application No. 09/277,049
Claims 1 through 5 and 21 through 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) as
being anticipated by Luger or Trummlitz.1
Claims 1 through 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable
over Trummlitz in view of Luger.
OPINION
We have carefully considered all of the arguments advanced by the appellants and
the examiner and agree with the examiner that the rejection of the claims under
§§ 102(b) and 103(a) are well founded. Accordingly, we affirm the rejections for the
reasons discussed herein. We agree with the appellants that the rejections under 35
U.S.C. § 112, first and second paragraphs are not well founded. Accordingly, we reverse
these rejections.
As an initial matter, it is the appellants’ position that, “claims 1 to 5 and 21 to 25
stand or fall together and claims 6 to 19 stand or fall together.” See Brief, page 3.
Accordingly, we select claims 1 and 6 as representative of the claimed subject matter
and limit our consideration thereto. See 37 CFR §1.192(c)(7) (2001).
The Rejections under § 112
Any analysis of the claims for compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 112 should start with
the second paragraph, then proceed with the first paragraph. In re Angstadt, 537 F.2d
498, 501, 190 USPQ 214, 217 (CCPA 1976). “The legal standard for definiteness [under
the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112] is whether a claim reasonably apprises those of
1Although the statement of the rejection utilized the conjunctive “and”, the rejection in fact considers
the references in the alternative.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007